Creationists and fundamentalist Christians...serious question?

To make the discussion a little simpler, let me use the terms "true Christian" and "false Christian" to categorize those who follow the orthodox faith. I'll apply the same to the "scientists."

You make a reasonable point in asking for some consistency in the way we take the actions of a few false Christians or false scientists who self-profess to be "true Christians" or "true scientists," when true Christians or true scientists cringe at the approaches used by the false ones - we both know that their misappropriation of the names "Christian" or "scientist" will throw each entire category into disrepute and ridicule by those who seek to discount the truths posed by the other side.

In other words, as a true Christian, I have to have faith in "truth" itself, and I cannot be pleased when a false scientist presents information that purports to disprove evolution if the information itself is not true. I am not necessarily out to disprove evolution (or any other such doctrine or theory that I disgree with," I am out to promote the cause of truth. Attempting to support the cause of truth with the use of a lie is patently absurd and must (as it so often does) lead to deeper levels of absurdity.

Now, having said that, I find no greater comfort in the theories of evolution simply because 95-98% (your statistics) of reasonable-minded scientists believe them to be true. As a scientist (or even a student of history,) we can find too many instances when the commonly-held scientific belief represented the reality, the "truth" for most or all who studied the fact. Their "paradigm" was locked in by the conformity of everyone else who said it was true. Even when they conducted scientific observations or experiments, they also determined that the findings supported the theory. But then later, as science advanced, the theories we found to be completly false, even to the point of ridculousness. The hypotheses and experiments were obviously faulty, but not intentionally. Perhaps the measuring instruments were too primitive to discern finer details.

I remember reading as a kid that people generally believed the atom to be the smallest particle of matter. I read in history when people believed the cell to be the most basic form of life. We know now that these things aren't "true," because later scientists have found smaller particles of matter, smaller building blocks for life, etc.

But, never anywhere in the realm of science has the scientifically accepted "truth" (perhaps, as you posit, accepted by 95-98% of true scientists) for the origin of life been discovered, nor even anything that supports it as a hypothesis. That "life" sprang from "non-life." The, given trillions upon trillions of years, random connections and coincidences of various forms of matter could connect to create a self-perpetuating form of matter with the ability to self-repicate itself, to mutate, evolve, diverge, sustain itself, etc, and nothing in the scientfic realm has ever given any evidence.

Yes, we can see the rock record and debate about whether the earth is 6,000 years old or billions of years old. Yes, we can peer to the distant reaches of the galaxy and wonder whether (or how many) other planets like ours also formed, capable of that elusive "spark" of life that took hold and has led to something we would recognize as life.

To give what is probably a bad example from a scientific view point, let me ask: how many atoms are in all of the sea? Surely, with so many near-infinite opportunities for those hydrogen, sodium, oxygen, and other elemental components to come together over the billions of years, or even one year, somewhere, we would begin to see creatures arising from the sea on a regular basis. The number of opportunities for non-life (i.e., every atom in the entire earths supply of plain old sea water) to spawn life of some sort should surely have led to some new form of life. That's not to say we don't discover new forms of life, new species as we plumb the depths of the sea, but I don't think anyone is seriously thinking these were recently randomly formed from non-life, but why not? Don't the conditions of near infinite quantities of random interactions between non-life forms present SOME probability that a life-form would arise? That is the basis for all evolution-based explanations for the CREATION of life. So how many billions of random interactions between non-life forms will be required for life to spring forth? What "magical" necessary conditions would need to also be in place, and aren't the existance of these conditions equally random?

In other words, I find the scientific position in support of macro evolution to be completely disingenuous. You have to arbitrarily pick and choose which aspects of the theory apply in support of the outcome you want to believe (as scientists have done throughout the ages,) in order to discout those parts that don't fit the theory. You call this, "science," and I call it "faith." Faith in randomness. Your science seeks as non-God-driven force to the creation of life, which I see as a rational impossibility, and you see my God-driven force behind the creation of life as an irrational possibilty.

Nonetheless, in the modern public realm, I agree with your basic premise: we are no longer searching for the truth, but we are seeking ways to prove the other side is wrong, which does not illuminate the truth. I, as a true Christian, believe that the truth will prevail for one reason and one reason alone: because it is true.

Some portion ( I won't posit a ratio) of true scientists must surely acknowledge that although, for the moment, macro evolution as an explanation for the creation of life may in fact be the best hypothesis available today, we cannot call it "truth" in light of the overwhelming number of observable facts that support some other truth. We must acknowledge, at least the POSSIBILITY that the other side may be right.

Obviously, there cannot be two truths in opposition to one another. A true scientist would not be so quick as to jump to the conclusion that the other side's "hypothesis" (i.e., God created life) is "untrue" without adequate information to either prove their scientific point of view or to disprove the God-centered point of view. So, although I agree that we shouldn't assume the 95-98% of scientists are whackos, I must question why they do not apply a more objective approach to something that, in fact, has never been scientifically proven. All we have today is a limited body of evidence that, if one is predisposed to believe it (by faith,) points in the direction of "life arising from non-life," or, as I choose to believe it (by faith,) points to a reality that "In the beginning..." Genesis 1:1.

Most of the Christians I know who are big on intelligent design don't just take it on the authority of the minority of scientists. Rather, they take it on the merits of their arguments.

But I realize the Christians I'm talking about are probably in the minority. Most Christians likely reject evolution neither because of the evidence, nor on the authority of the minority of scientists. Rather, they reject it on the basis of a perceived inconsistency between evolution and their belief in special creation, which they base on the Bible or some other church authority.

Good question, by the way.

Stereotyped as ignorant, uneducated, are you talking about Non-theists? LOL. There is stereotypical theists and non-theists, and then their are those of us who think for themselves. Those who do not follow the crowd of acceptance, and question ideas before acceptance. I was a non-theists, and a dam good one. When I read the Bible (and several other religious texts), I was convinced there is no God and this is the work/word of some very cleaver people. Humans are not that smart, and they made errors in their buy-bull story. It was not until I read the Bible looking for God to reveal himself to me that I realized that's it is impossible to honestly deny God exists. True, we are all inclined to project our own personal stereotypical theism on others, but when all is said and done - we're all the same. Its called judgment, something we all ought not to do. I'll like to end with this thought; Some of the best religious conversations I have had in my lifetime, are those with persons of different believes.

I dont believe in evolution because of science either. I believe that the Bible is true. We live by FAITH not by sight. That's hard for many to understand. It's hard for alot of Christians to do. But this is what pleases God...our Faith. Noah built the Ark by faith. It had never rained to that point and people, i'm sure, mocked him...but because faith he continued.

Faith is not an easy thing...however, when you step out into faith, God truly blesses you. You dont do it in your own strength, but the strength which he gives you.

I'm not "up" on the scientists and dont care to be. Their were great scientists of the Jesus day....the 3 magi...and they Worshiped the baby Jesus because the stars which they believed in....directed them to the place where Jesus was. Now, that was all done by the way of God and the stars had nothing to do with it....but they didnt see it that way. They were not believers in the God of the universe(in my opinion), but they knew that Jesus Christ was special because the stars directed them there.

So science, can and is directed by God to be what God wants it to be...and we still have to have Faith to be that.

God's blessings

Those who say they are Christian, but do something else, are not Christians. They, my friend, are a lie. Anyone can use a label. I, myself, like to use the word CROSS-BEARER....again another label, but not one that is used much and it's just that. I take up my cross and follow Jesus, by his grace.

The key is to go back to the source documents: in the case of Christians, the Bible, in the case of scientists the collected data. The Bible, itself, makes it clear as to whom is out of line with their beliefs, ergo the Klan, homosexual priests, etc.

The empirical data does not support evolution as anything more than a theory.

For example, it is believed that all life began from the joining together of 2 enzymes billions of years ago. However, every attempt to prove this theory has met with abysmal failure due to one simple, incontrovertible fact, the 2 enzymes never can join. They are incompatible with each other.

Therefore, it behooves science to delve deeper into the data to try to come up with evidence for this theory. In this case, the scientists that belief in Creation have more data on their side than the evolutionists.

Not all Christians are anti-evolution or anti-science. After all, God created the things of this world that science is discovering. New species discovered every day. That doesn't mean they weren't already here. God knew they were here, and He is allowing us to discover it. As for evolution, I can see where it is plausible, but if so, God set the whole evolution thing in motion.

Bravo, but you're asking them to think about how other's feel. The audience of Christians you are speaking to in THIS post are not capable of doing so.

(Not all Christians, just the fudamentalist who are so conviced they are right that they refuse to listen to anyone but thier own voice. Pharisee anyone?)

It's a good question but probably too difficult for them. They'll just say things like 'Jesus died for us', 'God loves us', 'the Bible is God's word' etc etc.

Scientist don't make me not believe in evolution....

Criticize me all you want. But I become a mirror when you criticize God. You can crititcize us all you want, because we are people just like everyone else.